CBD cosmetics: six criteria for a permitted claim

Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 lays down the general rule: the text, names, trade marks and pictures used for a cosmetic product must not attribute to it characteristics it does not have. Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013, of 10 July 2013, draws the operational criteria from it.

Its article 1 defines the field unambiguously: it covers text, names, trade marks, pictures and figurative signs that convey, explicitly or implicitly, a characteristic or a function of the product, in labelling, in making available on the market and in advertising. In other words, the rule does not stop at the bottle: it holds for an online shop's product page, for a social media visual and for the trade name itself. The text has applied since 11 July 2013.

This point is often misunderstood where hemp is concerned. The words "with CBD" are a statement of composition, checkable against the ingredient list. What becomes a claim is the property attached to that ingredient. Our article on allergens, fragrance and the label of a CBD cosmetic covers composition; this one covers the promise.

The third criterion is what separates brands. "Evidential support" does not mean that a user review will do: the evidence has to bear on what is claimed, under the stated conditions of use. Published laboratory data on cannabidiol demonstrates nothing about a finished balm applied to the skin.

The fifth criterion, fairness, targets a widespread practice: promoting one product by disqualifying another. The French enforcement authorities have published guidance devoted to so-called "free from" claims, which raise this problem when they suggest that an authorised substance should be avoided.

The dividing line is the same in all six cases. A composition claim is checked against the label. A cosmetic function claim is checked against an evidence file. A claim attributing to the product an action on a condition, on a bodily function or on a state of mind can be checked nowhere within the cosmetic field: it takes the product out of it.

Our guide to CBD massage oil, INCI, dilution and storage shows what a page that sticks to the checkable looks like: the composition, the dilution, the storage, and nothing about what the product would do.

Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 defines a cosmetic product by its purpose: a substance placed in contact with the external parts of the human body, the teeth or the mucous membranes of the mouth, exclusively or mainly in order to clean them, perfume them, change their appearance, protect them, keep them in good condition or correct body odours.

Two consequences follow, and they settle most cases. First, a product intended to be swallowed, inhaled, injected or implanted cannot be a cosmetic product: the route of administration determines the legal regime. Second, a claim presenting the product as acting on a disease or as restoring a bodily function tips it into the health product regime, with the authorisations that regime entails. A manufacturer writing such a sentence does not make the product more attractive: it makes it non-compliant.

The report funded by MILDECA (the French interministerial mission on drugs) and published in December 2023 illustrates the state of the French market. Out of 248 cannabidiol products bought and then analysed, across all categories, cosmetics included, 46 % carried no composition labelling at all, and 30 exceeded the THC threshold with contents of 0.4 to 1.2 %. The authors note that advertising for these products frequently rests on claims that go beyond the applicable framework. Our article on the advertising rules for CBD in France takes up that question from the consumer law side.

The European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety delivered a final opinion on 26 March 2026 on cannabidiol used in cosmetic products, published on 24 April 2026 under the reference SCCS/1685/25. Three elements stand out from it.

The committee considers cannabidiol safe up to a concentration of 0.19 % in dermal and oral cosmetic products, taken separately or in combination. It also accepts a THC content, present as an impurity, judged safe up to 0.00025 % in those same categories. Finally, the opinion explicitly excludes from its scope the use of cannabidiol in products liable to expose the lungs by inhalation, and confines itself to the safety of pure cannabidiol.

The committee itself flags a limitation: the assessment rests on scarce data. Above all, this opinion concerns safety, not efficacy: it permits no claimed property and removes the need for no evidential support. Our article on the framework for cosmetic CBD places that assessment within the wider set of rules.

The house editorial rule fits in one sentence: no property is claimed. The oils in the catalogue combine a full spectrum hemp extract with a carrier vegetable oil stated on the label, at a cannabidiol content of between 5 and 20 % depending on the reference. They are presented for external application and are neither foodstuffs nor food supplements.

What the page gives instead of a promise: a batch number, an HPLC analysis carried out by an independent laboratory accredited to ISO/IEC 17025, a full cannabinoid profile, contaminants checked by ICP-MS for metals and by LC-MS/MS for pesticides, and a Δ⁹-THC always below 0.30 %. The concentration stated on the label is set against the value measured on the batch, without rounding. That is the only register in which a product page can be precise without risk. Frequent questions are gathered in our frequently asked questions.

• EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 of 10 July 2013
• Full text of Regulation (EU) No 655/2013, Institut Hysope (consulted on 16 September 2026)
• EUR-Lex, Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products
• European Commission, opinion SCCS/1685/25 on cannabidiol in cosmetics
• DGCCRF, "free from" claims in cosmetic products
• MILDECA, "Cannabidiol : analyse de produits CBD non pharmaceutiques", December 2023
• Phytogrammes, full spectrum CBD oils
• Phytogrammes, cosmetic CBD and the applicable framework